4.6 Article

Catastrophizing as a mediator of sex differences in pain: differential effects for daily pain versus laboratory-induced pain

期刊

PAIN
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 335-341

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.07.012

关键词

pain; threshold; tolerance; catastrophizing; sex

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE 12261, DE 13906] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sex differences in the experience of pain have been widely reported, with females generally reporting more frequent clinical pain and demonstrating greater pain sensitivity. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences, while subject to intense speculation, are not well-characterized. Catastrophizing is a cognitive and affective process that relates strongly to enhanced reports of pain and that varies as a function of sex. It is thus a prime candidate to explain sex differences; indeed, several prior studies offer evidence that controlling for catastrophizing eliminates the gap between men and women in reported pain. We recruited 198 healthy young adults (115 female) who took part in laboratory studies of pain responses, including thermal pain, cold pain, and ischemic pain, and who also completed questionnaires assessing catastrophizing, mood, and day-to-day painful symptoms (e.g. headache, backache). Women reported greater levels of catastrophizing, more recent painful symptoms, and demonstrated lower pain thresholds and tolerances for noxious heat and cold relative to men. Mediational analyses suggested that after controlling for negative mood, catastrophizing mediated the sex difference in recent daily pain but did not mediate the much larger sex differences in pain threshold and tolerance. These findings highlight the role of catastrophizing in shaping pain responses, as well as illuminating potentially important differences between experimental pain assessment and the clinical experience of pain. (C) 2004 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据